WI - Jason Pero, 14, shot & killed by police, Ashland County, 8 Nov 2017

[Karinna]

BBM... what did you read? Can you link? I'd like to familiarize myself and learn more about tribal law enforcement and related topics. Based on the reservations website, I don't see why the LEO had no right to do what he did, but admittedly, I am not very familiar with how law enforcement is handled on reservations in PL 280 states.



http://www.badriver-nsn.gov/history



http://www.twincities.com/2017/11/1...on-was-out-sick-from-school-grandparents-say/

LE doesn't have jurisdiction in areas of amendment rights of a tribe.
I linked about that on the previous page.
Here is some case law for your perusal
(quote)
The state contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed citations issued to John and Peter Lemieux for their violation of sec. 29.224 (2), Stats.[2] Section 29.224 (2) prohibits the possession or *486 transportation of uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles. The court held that the state did not have jurisdiction to enforce sec. 29.224 against enrolled members of an Indian tribe within the boundaries of their reservation. Because the state has failed to establish its subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm.
https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/court-of-appeals/1982/81-713-6.html

 

[bears10]

All very true. In my state, one can carry a fire arm openly as well. Even still, if police dispatch receives a report that somebody is in a neighborhood and carrying a gun, they are going to respond to that report. They probably will not arrest the person carrying the weapon though (providing he is not carrying it in a way to cause alarm).


Had the police in Las Vegas received a call about a man with multiple rifles in his hotel room, should they have ignored it? After all, rifles are legal in Nevada and no crime was being committed- well, not that moment. Or, should the police have responded and tried to ascertain what intents the man had?

What about a call about a man outside a church with a fire arm in Texas? In an of itself, carrying a fire arm outside a church is not illegal. Should the police respond? Or do they need to wait until he say, starts shooting people? Likewise, in Florida, what if the police received a call about a man with a rifle outside a gay bar. Should the police view it as "nothing illegal- no big deal, no need to respond"?




Very good points.

I guess hypothetical calls about a man with alot of rifles and alot ammunition in a Las Vegas hotel room and a man outside a church with a rifle should also be ignored by the police. After all, neither action was illegal.

Thanks for your post

Also, its not legal for some people to carry knives in WI. If they are not permitted to carry a firearm (likely bc of a felony conviction) then they cannot have a knife. How would LE know if the person was a convicted felon without being able to talk to him? Which the LEO apparently wasn’t able to talk to him since he wouldn’t drop the knife and then lunged at the officer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

Thanks for your post

Also, its not legal for some people to carry knives in WI. If they are not permitted to carry a firearm (likely bc of a felony conviction) then they cannot have a knife. How would LE know if the person was a convicted felon without being able to talk to him? Which the LEO apparently wasn’t able to talk to him since he wouldn’t drop the knife and then lunged at the officer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jason Pero had committed no previous crimes. But the whole issue is about a state cop dealing with the matter on the tribal boundaries of an Indian reservation. He could of driven in his vehicle to acknowledge that Jason was or wasn't walking around carrying a knife, and then what he should of done was notified the Tribal police and let them deal with the matter because it was out of his jurisdiction to do so. That is how i am interpreting the law on it.

 

[Karinna]

And i bet if the Tribal police had of dealt with the matter that Jason would still be alive IMO.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

The officer was called to the scene because of a 'man with a knife.' The officer had no idea that this was a 14 yr old, or that he was troubled.

He only knows that a very large male is lunging at him with a large butcher knife, and refuses to drop the knife. The officer did urgently try deescalation by asking the teen to drop the knife. He asked him several times to drop the weapon.

It is no longer a question of mental illness issues when an officer, who is a person, not a robot, is confronted by a large strong agitated male with a butcher knife. The officer wants to go home to his family. He is going to defend himself against a deadly weapon.

The officer HAS EVERY RIGHT to defend himself against a deadly weapon. Lethal force will be met with lethal force.

It does not matter if the person lunging at him with the knife is Native American or Mentally Ill or drunk or despondent or high on spice or whatever else...at that critical moment, all that matters is that split second decision to defend oneself from being stabbed in the neck or face or thigh.

Every one of us has the right to defend ourselves from someone lunging at us with a butcher knife. Except cops, apparently. Somehow we expect them to avoid meeting lethal force with lethal force. We expect them to go hand to hand combat, to avoid injuring the person trying to stab them.

He could have protected himself by getting back in his car.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

All very true. In my state, one can carry a fire arm openly as well. Even still, if police dispatch receives a report that somebody is in a neighborhood and carrying a gun, they are going to respond to that report. They probably will not arrest the person carrying the weapon though (providing he is not carrying it in a way to cause alarm).


Had the police in Las Vegas received a call about a man with multiple rifles in his hotel room, should they have ignored it? After all, rifles are legal in Nevada and no crime was being committed- well, not that moment. Or, should the police have responded and tried to ascertain what intents the man had?

What about a call about a man outside a church with a fire arm in Texas? In an of itself, carrying a fire arm outside a church is not illegal. Should the police respond? Or do they need to wait until he say, starts shooting people? Likewise, in Florida, what if the police received a call about a man with a rifle outside a gay bar. Should the police view it as "nothing illegal- no big deal, no need to respond"?




Very good points.

I guess hypothetical calls about a man with alot of rifles and alot ammunition in a Las Vegas hotel room and a man outside a church with a rifle should also be ignored by the police. After all, neither action was illegal.

If someone had called about the Las Vegas shooter having a lot of guns, no one would have done anything. Everything he was doing until the minute he opened fire was legal.

 

[bears10]

LE doesn't have jurisdiction in areas of amendment rights of a tribe.
I linked about that on the previous page.
Here is some case law for your perusal
(quote)
The state contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed citations issued to John and Peter Lemieux for their violation of sec. 29.224 (2), Stats.[2] Section 29.224 (2) prohibits the possession or *486 transportation of uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles. The court held that the state did not have jurisdiction to enforce sec. 29.224 against enrolled members of an Indian tribe within the boundaries of their reservation. Because the state has failed to establish its subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm.
https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/court-of-appeals/1982/81-713-6.html

This is from like 35 years ago and about hunting and guns. I’m not understanding how it confirms that the LEO in this case should not have responded to the call which resulted in the reason we are on this thread. Why does Wisconsin law apply on reservations then? I don’t understand. Maybe you can ELI5 so I can comprehend, bc the court case you quoted didn’t help explain to me. TIA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bears10]

Jason Pero had committed no previous crimes. But the whole issue is about a state cop dealing with the matter on the tribal boundaries of an Indian reservation. He could of driven in his vehicle to acknowledge that Jason was or wasn't walking around carrying a knife, and then what he should of done was notified the Tribal police and let them deal with the matter because it was out of his jurisdiction to do so. That is how i am interpreting the law on it.

How was the officer supposed to know if he committed precious crimes? Why does LE respond to calls on the reservation if they are not allowed to do anything? Seems like a waste of time IMO. Idk, the reservations own website said local and state LE handles their criminal things and the tribe handles civil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bears10]

And i bet if the Tribal police had of dealt with the matter that Jason would still be alive IMO.

It’s not resourceful to have one LE agency come respond to a crime just to step back and say “whoa sorry not gonna deal with this, let me call another LE agency”. Then if that’s the case, 911 calls should be directly sent to the tribal police.


ETA imagine if the LEO responded to a 911 call only to find someone murdering someone else, but he can’t act bc he has to wait for the other LE agency to come. How is that logical or efficient?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[scmom]

Law Enforcement


Mission Statement
“The Bad River Police Department serves the community within the Bad River Reservation by helping build a stronger community through police protection and service while instilling a sense of unity and treating all with respect, dignity, and compassion”.

Office Hours 8am-1pm Mon-Thursday
Please do not call the office if you request an officer, for an emergency call 911, non emergency call the Ashland County Dispatcher @ 715-682-7023.



Chief, Scott Holmen,
Office 715-682-7111 ext 1569
Fax 715-685-2607
policechief@badriver-nsn.gov
Sergeant, Mark Campy
Office 715-682-7111 ext 1571
PD2@badriver-nsn.gov
Patrol, Caryn Krupa
Office 715-682-7111 ext 1571
PD4@badriver-nsn.gov

Patrol, Luke Wozniak
Office 715-682-7111 ext 1571
PD3@badriver-nsn.gov

Administrative Assistant, Jean Haun-Thomas
Office, 715-682-7111 ext 1568
PDAdminAsst@badriver-nsn.gov

Office Hours 8am-1pm Mon-Thursday
Please do not call the office if you request an officer, for an emergency call 911, non emergency call the Ashland County Dispatcher @ 715-682-7023.

http://www.badriver-nsn.gov/2013-08-14-17-05-42/law-enforcement

Maybe this will explain why the county was called.

 

[Vail]

This is a perfect example of excessive force. You do not need to use a firearm on a slow moving 300lb child with a knife, all you have to do is stay out of arms reach and wait for backup. Officers are trained in both disarming techniques and negotiation - this guy failed epically at both.

 

[bears10]

This is a perfect example of excessive force. You do not need to use a firearm on a slow moving 300lb child with a knife, all you have to do is stay out of arms reach and wait for backup. Officers are trained in both disarming techniques and negotiation - this guy failed epically at both.

How do you know he was slow moving? Adrenaline is intense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

He could have protected himself by getting back in his car.

Agreed! And maybe the cops could have just not killed him and used a taser or other less-than-lethal force instead of a firearm. JMO

 

[bears10]

Law Enforcement


Mission Statement
“The Bad River Police Department serves the community within the Bad River Reservation by helping build a stronger community through police protection and service while instilling a sense of unity and treating all with respect, dignity, and compassion”.

Office Hours 8am-1pm Mon-Thursday
Please do not call the office if you request an officer, for an emergency call 911, non emergency call the Ashland County Dispatcher @ 715-682-7023.



Chief, Scott Holmen,
Office 715-682-7111 ext 1569
Fax 715-685-2607
policechief@badriver-nsn.gov
Sergeant, Mark Campy
Office 715-682-7111 ext 1571
PD2@badriver-nsn.gov
Patrol, Caryn Krupa
Office 715-682-7111 ext 1571
PD4@badriver-nsn.gov

Patrol, Luke Wozniak
Office 715-682-7111 ext 1571
PD3@badriver-nsn.gov

Administrative Assistant, Jean Haun-Thomas
Office, 715-682-7111 ext 1568
PDAdminAsst@badriver-nsn.gov

Office Hours 8am-1pm Mon-Thursday
Please do not call the office if you request an officer, for an emergency call 911, non emergency call the Ashland County Dispatcher @ 715-682-7023.

http://www.badriver-nsn.gov/2013-08-14-17-05-42/law-enforcement

Maybe this will explain why the county was called.

So if I live on the reservation and at 3pm on a Friday someone breaks into my house and tries to rape and kill me, I’m supposed to call 911, but the LEO who show up to the scene can’t do anything to the perp bc they don’t have the legal right to act bc the crime scene is on a reservation? And they are going to watch this person murder me bc the tribal department won’t reopen until Monday at 8am?? How is that safe for the residents that live on the reservation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

This is from like 35 years ago and about hunting and guns. I’m not understanding how it confirms that the LEO in this case should not have responded to the call which resulted in the reason we are on this thread. Why does Wisconsin law apply on reservations then? I don’t understand. Maybe you can ELI5 so I can comprehend, bc the court case you quoted didn’t help explain to me. TIA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will try and simplify it for you. What the court will need to determine if this goes to trial/court is was the LEO's actions "criminal prohibitory" or "civil regulatory" in nature?
Under this analysis, statutes making violations of some acts punishable by penal sanctions have been held unenforceable against Indians because the statutes did not totally prohibit, but merely regulated, certain aspects of otherwise legal conduct. (paraphrased)
It doesn't matter how long ago, these are laws written into law by congress and are just as valid today as they were previously.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Bears has a point. It’s not uncommon for tribal law enforcement to work with city and county police and sheriffs departments and vice versa.

That said, I’m unfamiliar with this specific tribe and any agreements it might have with other LE agencies.

So if I live on the reservation and at 3pm on a Friday someone breaks into my house and tries to rape and kill me, I’m supposed to call 911, but the LEO who show up to the scene can’t do anything to the perp bc they don’t have the legal right to act bc the crime scene is on a reservation? And they are going to watch this person murder me bc the tribal department won’t reopen until Monday at 8am?? How is that safe for the residents that live on the reservation?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

So if I live on the reservation and at 3pm on a Friday someone breaks into my house and tries to rape and kill me, I’m supposed to call 911, but the LEO who show up to the scene can’t do anything to the perp bc they don’t have the legal right to act bc the crime scene is on a reservation? And they are going to watch this person murder me bc the tribal department won’t reopen until Monday at 8am?? How is that safe for the residents that live on the reservation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If there is the commission of a crime taking place then yes, local state LE can intervene.

 

[bears10]

If there is the commission of a crime taking place then yes, local state LE can intervene.

It is a crime to lunge at a LEO with a knife.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bears10]

I will try and simplify it for you. What the court will need to determine if this goes to trial/court is was the LEO's actions "criminal prohibitory" or "civil regulatory" in nature?
Under this analysis, statutes making violations of some acts punishable by penal sanctions have been held unenforceable against Indians because the statutes did not totally prohibit, but merely regulated, certain aspects of otherwise legal conduct. (paraphrased)
It doesn't matter how long ago, these are laws written into law by congress and are just as valid today as they were previously.

Thanks for the condescending response, but the summary you found does not simplify it for me. Laws change all the time. Just because it was written into congress 35 years ago doesn’t mean it’s the same today. Then why do LE agencies respond to 911 calls originating on the reservation if they are going to risk lawsuits for doing so? Because it seems up for interpretation what state LE is allowed to act upon on reservations. Which is completely understandable if they aren’t allowed to respond or act at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

This is so incredibly sad. Jason Pero didn’t deserve to die. He didn’t deserve to be killed by law enforcement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...n-police-kill-native-american-teen/index.html

"He was a good kid, a happy kid," the boy's grandfather, Alan Pero, said. "He loved being around family and friends. He was a jokester. His teachers loved him. Quite a bit of teachers came to the funeral and wake."

Jason's mother is blind, and he was always happy to help her and serve as her guide, Alan Pero said.

Snip

A search of Jason's bedroom supports reports that the teen had been despondent for a few days before his death, the DOJ said without elaborating.

Snip

Alan Pero told CNN his grandson thought he had the flu, and his father picked him up and took him to his grandparents' house, where Jason lived, walking distance from his parents' home.

Snip

Holly Gauthier, Jason's mother, said he was the only one of her three children she has ever been able to see with her own eyes. She lost her sight to glaucoma when Jason was a toddler.

Gauthier said she was skeptical of the account from authorities, who said her son "lunged" at a sheriff's deputy.

"I know the kind of boy my son was," she told CNN.

"I know that lunging could also mean taking a step. It's all on what words they want to include in their report," Gauthier said. "It's almost like they are trying to make my 14-year-old boy look like a man, and he did not. He had a baby face and a boy's voice."

Heartbreaking. [emoji174]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk